NATION

Burney refutes Singh’s request of revisiting ruling

The defence opened their case in the Nadroga-Navosa sedi­tion case yesterday at Lauto­ka High Court before Justice Sunil Sharma. Defence lawyer Aman Ravindra Singh representing 12 accused per­sons raised some
24 Oct 2017 11:00
Burney refutes Singh’s request of revisiting ruling

The defence opened their case in the Nadroga-Navosa sedi­tion case yesterday at Lauto­ka High Court before Justice Sunil Sharma.

Defence lawyer Aman Ravindra Singh representing 12 accused per­sons raised some issues.

Mr Singh told the court that pros­ecution was not able to identify ac­cused Persons 7 and 11 during the prosecution case and the state wit­nesses were not able to point out to them and identify them.

He also said that some paragraphs from the ruling of ‘no case to an­swer’ application were taken out of context and his clients had no sedi­tious intention.

He added that his clients had clear­ly stated in their respective caution interviews that they had no sedi­tious intention and did not know about the content of the Nadroga-Navosa Sovereign Christian State document.

He also asked the court to revisit the ruling and make amendments.

State Lawyer Lee Burney labelled Mr Singh’s request of revisiting the ruling as unnecessary.

He said that the identification of the seventh and 11 accused by inves­tigating officers should not be made an issue.

He said their signatures and their accepting to sign the documents in their caution interview was more than what the court needed as evi­dence.

He said that Mr Singh had no is­sue when the investigation officers did not identify the seventh and eleventh accused during the pros­ecution case therefore he should not bring this up during the defence case.

Mr Burney also said that the court ruled out the application of ‘no case to answer’ because of the seditious intention of the accused.

He stated that according to the law and evidence produced in court, the judge could not revisit the ruling of ‘no case to answer’ application.

Justice Sharma dismissed the re­quest of defence counsel Aman Sin­gh to revisit the ruling of ‘no case to answer’ application and asked defence to continue with the trial proper and exercise their rights.

Edited by Karalaini Waqanidrola

Feedback: jessica.savike@fijisun.com.fj



Laybuy it 5squares


Get updates from the Fiji Sun, handpicked and delivered to your inbox.


By entering your email address you're giving us permission to send you news and offers. You can opt-out at any time.


Covid 19 - SPC
Total
Subscribe-to-Newspaper
Fiji Sun Instagram
Subscribe-to-Newspaper